The character of analog and digital

“Digital is absolutely capable of delivering natural, captivating and exquisite sound quality if one has assembled a proper set up.”
+1, @charles1dad

It’s no surprise to see millercarbon putting down digital. Nothing will change his mind! Now that he’s back, just enjoy the freshly cooked up stories on Vinyl triumph over Digital in his mid-fi system 🍿

As @noske pointed out, the discussion here is about feature of the media or the many issues related to the recording and engineering of that recording. A well recorded piece of music properly transferred to physical media or streaming platform should sound great as long as your system is properly setup to re-produce that recording.

@millercarbon 

aw far as tracy chapman, i was looking into buying her debut album but its very pricey and was all recorded digitally, i have a very nice digital rig, and a very very nice analog setup now.. but since its a digital recording on vinyl wondering if itll be any better than my digital file

Instead it was his wife that released a sigh of unexpected pleasure practically the instant the stylus touched down. The two reactions I would pay money to have recorded, that one and the other guys wife who when her husband wasn’t looking whispered to me, "I could listen to this all night!" In a tone of amazement, because her audiophile husband having only CD she never even imagined music on a high end system could sound like, you know, music.

The time honored unsolicited audiophile wife (Long suffering no doubt) comments as a prop for added/confirmed legitimacy. Still there remains the issue of them simply lacking the opportunity to have heard better quality digital sources for which to compare. So, very limited exposure/data base.

Why is it so difficult to acknowledge that both formats are quite music rendering accomplished if done right. Sigh!!!

Charles

Is that the sound of a dropped stylus on a platter or the sound a piano makes genuflecting in the forest?  : )

Yes, a very welcome back to you. I’m honored to be the venue for one of your initial posts.

In most digital v. vinyl discussions I've encountered, the burden of proof  seems to be on the digital side.  Seems to me, it should be the other way around.  Vinyl is subject to damage from dust, heat, and wear that do not affect digital. Turntable belts stretch, needles wear.  So a fair comparison should be under real-world conditions, between a moderately worn vinyl  record and a digital recording of the same performance, where both are played through electronic components of comparable quality.  And to be fair, really, the turntable and stylus should be compared after accruing some realistic amount of play time.  Prove that the moderately used vinyl, played on a moderately used turntable, with no history of herculean maintenance efforts, has no more audible noise (pops, static, skips, etc.) and just as much dynamic range as the digital recording of the same performance. If not, then convince us that the vinyl has other superior qualities to compensate for the audible noise.

Even if we're comparing pristine vinyl recordings to digital, I've never seen convincing evidence that the vinyl SQ  is superior.  By "convincing" I mean, supported by either (a) objective measurements, or (b) expert testimony.  Anything less is anecdotal.  Not saying it's wrong, not saying it's right.  It's your opinion.  But the fact remains, digital is far more convenient, it is not subject to wear and tear, and the majority of listeners seem to prefer it (rightly or wrongly, for reasons that may or may not emphasize SQ).  I have not listened to vinyl for many years, so I admit, maybe I'm missing something about the sound quality. But I know I don't miss the dust, the warping, the worn needles, the stretched belts, etc., or all the accompanying maintenance fuss.